, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 1043–1055 | Cite as

Financial impact of two different ways of evaluating early virological response to peginterferon-α-2b plus ribavirin therapy in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1

  • Maria Buti
  • Miguel A. Casado
  • Leslie Fosbrook
  • Rafael Esteban
Original Research Article


Background: Patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 are the least responsive to peginterferon (pegIFN) and ribavirin therapy. The monitoring of early virological response (EVR) is therefore an important tool for quickly identifying non-responders, permitting therapy discontinuation and avoiding adverse effects and costs.

Objective: To analyse the financial impact, in treatment-naive patients infected with HCV genotype 1, of two different measurement techniques for evaluating the EVR during pegIFN-α-2b plus ribavirin therapy, and to compare the results of a 48-week standard course of therapy with pegIFN-α-2b plus ribavirin without measuring EVR.

Methods: A budget impact model was constructed using a decision-tree analysis. EVR was defined as a >2 log decline in HCV RNA levels at week 12 either tested with two quantitative HCV RNA tests or undetectable HCV core antigen (HCV core Ag) protein levels at week 12 (one HCV core Ag test). Clinical data were taken from multicentre trials and costs from the published literature (€, 2003 values). The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Spanish healthcare system and therefore only direct costs were considered. The base-case scenario assumed that a potential study population of 18 504 people in Spain with chronic HCV genotype 1 would be eligible for treatment with pegIFN-α-2b plus ribavirin.

Results: In the base case, the most effective strategy was testing EVR by HCV core Ag. This resulted in 12 745 patients reaching a sustained virological response (SVR) at an overall cost of €243.98 million (€19 142 per SVR). Conversely, quantitative HCV RNA testing resulted in 11 776 patients with an SVR at a cost of €232.73 million (€19 763 per SVR). The incremental cost per successfully treated patient with HCV core Ag testing versus quantitative HCV RNA testing was €11 597. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that changes in the study parameters did not modify the outcomes, except when increasing the EVR or SVR of strategy 2 or when decreasing the EVR or SVR of strategy 3.

Conclusion: This model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, that the assessment of EVR at week 12 by HCV core Ag testing in chronic HCV patients infected with genotype 1 permits identification of those patients expected to achieve an SVR with pegIFN-α-2b and ribavirin, resulting in a lower overall cost to the Spanish healthcare system than HCV RNA testing or no testing at all.


  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Management of Hepatitis C 2002 Jun 10-12. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 2082–99Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EASL International Consensus Conference on Hepatitis C. Paris, 1999 Feb 26-28. J Hepatol 1999; 30: 956–61Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alberti A, Noventa F, Benvegnn L, et al. Prevalence of liver disease in a population of asymptomatic persons with hepatitis C virus infection. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 961–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manus MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 958–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy RK, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 975–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hadziyannis SJ, Sette H, Morgan TR, et al. Peginterferon-u2a and ribavirin combination therapy in chronic hepatitis C: a randomized study of treatment duration and ribavirin dose. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 346–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pawlotsky JM. Molecular diagnosis of viral hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2002; 122: 1554–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berg T, Sarrazin C, Herrmann E, et al. Prediction of treatment outcome in patients with chronic hepatitis C: significance of baseline parameters and viral dynamics during therapy. Hepatology 2003; 37: 600–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zeuzem S, Lee J-H, Franke A, et al. Quantification of the initial decline of serum hepatitis C virus RNA and response to interferon alfa. Hepatology 1998; 27: 1149–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SS, Heathcote EJ, Reddy KR, et al. Prognostic factors and early predictability of sustained viral response with peginterferon alfa-2a (40KD). J Hepatol 2002; 37: 500–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delmer J, Lagier R, Flynn J, et al. Accurate quantification of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA from all HCV genotypes by using branched-DNA technology. J Clin Microbiol 1996; 34: 901–7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis GL, Wong JB, McHutchison JG, et al. Early virologic response to treatment with peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38: 645–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong JB, Davis G, McHutchison JG, et al. Economic and clinical effects of evaluating rapid viral response to peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for the initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2354–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanaka E, Kiyosawa K, Matsumoto A, et al. Serum levels of hepatitis C virus core protein in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with interferon alfa. Hepatology 1996; 23: 1330–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bouvier-Alias M, Patel K, Dahari H, et al. Clinical utility of total HCV core antigen quantification: a new indirect marker of HCV replication. Hepatology 2002; 36: 211–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buti M, San Miguel R, Brosa M, et al. Estimating the impact of HCV therapy on the future liver-related morbidity, mortality and costs related to chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2005; 42: 639–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gagni A, Birch S. NICE methodological guidelines and decision making in the National Health Service in England and Wales. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 149–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ess SM, Schneeweiss S, Szucs TD. European healthcare policies for controlling drug expenditure. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 89–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Darba J. Pharmaceutical expenditure and therapeutic value of new medicines in Spain. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 1211–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chambers M, Hutton J, Nuitjen M. Budget impact analysis for health technology appraisal: development and application within the NICE appraisal process. J Clin Excellence 2002; 4: 203–6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pradat P, Maynard M, Buti M, et al. The predictive value of core antigen testing for the management of hepatitis C patients receiving pegylated interferon/ribavirin treatment. J Med Virol 2004; 73: 392–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rebucci C, Cerino A, Cividine A, et al. Monitoring response to antiviral for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection by core-antigen assay. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 3881–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buti M, Mendez C, Schaper M, et al. Hepatitis C virus core antigen as a predictor of non-response in genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients treated with peginterferon alfa 2b plus ribavirin. J Hepatol 2004; 40: 527–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    General Spanish Council of Pharmacists. Catalogue of Medici-nal Products, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buti M, Medina M, Casado MA, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for the treatment of naive patients with chronic hepatitis C. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 687–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Statistics Institute. Consumer Price Index [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Sep 5]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Basic types of economic evaluation. Critical assessment of economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al., editors. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmers. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beilby JJ, Pekarsky B. Fundholding: learning from the past and looking for the future. Med J Aust 2002; 176: 321–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anis AH, Gagnon Y. Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions: so much for guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 119–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 855–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health 2004; 7: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nuitjen MJC, Rutten F. Combining a budgetary-impact analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis using decision-analytic modelling techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 855–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McHutchison JG, Manus M, Patel K, et al. Adherence to combination therapy enhances sustained virologic response in genotype 1-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 1061–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davis GL. Monitoring of viral levels during therapy of hepatitis C. Hepatology 2002; 36 (5 Suppl. 1): S145–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Buti
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Casado
    • 2
  • Leslie Fosbrook
    • 3
  • Rafael Esteban
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HepatologyHospital Vall d’Hebr’onBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research IberiaMadridSpain
  3. 3.Schering-PloughMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations